A Standardized Protocol for Opioid Prescribing After Surgery Decreases Total Morphine Equivalents Prescribed.

INTRODUCTION: Perioperative opioid analgesia has been extensively reexamined during the opioid epidemic. Multiple studies have demonstrated over prescription of opioids, demonstrating the need for change in prescribing practices. A standard opioid prescribing protocol was implemented to evaluate opioid prescribing trends and practices. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate opioid use after primary ventral, inguinal, and incisional hernia repair and to assess clinical factors that may impact opioid prescribing and consumption. Secondary outcomes include the number of refills, patients without opioid requirement, difference in opioid use based on patient characteristics and adherence to prescribing protocol. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study examining patients undergoing inguinal, primary ventral and incisional hernias between February and November 2019. A standardized prescribing protocol was implemented and utilized for postoperative prescribing. All data was captured in the abdominal core health quality collaborative (ACHQC) and opioid use was standardized via morphine milligram equivalents (MME). RESULTS: 389 patients underwent primary ventral, incisional, and inguinal hernia repair, with a total of 285 included in the final analysis. 170 (59.6%) of patients reported zero opioid use postoperatively. Total opioid MME prescribed and high MME consumption were significantly higher after incisional hernia repair with a greater number of refills were required. Compliance with prescribing protocol resulted in lower MME prescription, but not actual lower MME consumption. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a standardized protocol for opioid prescribing after surgery decreases the total MME prescribed. Compliance with our protocol significantly reduced this disparity, which has the potential for decreasing abuse, misuse, and diversion of opioids by better estimating actual postoperative analgesic requirements.

The Trauma Activation Review Committee: Response to Undertriage During a Period of Rapid Growth at a Level II Trauma Center.

Trauma triage criteria are constantly being refined for improved identification of severely injured patients. When errors occur, they should be tracked, and triage criteria adjusted to minimize these events. Two time periods of trauma registry data at a single rural level II trauma center were retrospectively compared to evaluate demographics, injuries, and outcomes to identify triage errors. In 300 activated trauma patients during 2011, overtriage was 23% and undertriage was 3.7%. In 1035 activated trauma patients during 2019, overtriage was 20.5% and undertriage was 2.2%. Mortality decreased over time overall. In 2019, Trauma I patients were older, spent more time on the ventilator, and in the ICU (all P < .001). Trauma II patients were also older, had lower ISS, hospital days, and ventilator days (all P < .001). During rapid growth, evaluation of overtriage and undertriage can provide useful feedback for hospital staff to refine triage choices and improve patient outcomes.